Ancient megalithic cairn discovered on bottom of the Sea of Galilee

Archeologists have discovered an ancient pile of rocks on the bottom of the sea of galilee.

A giant "monumental" stone structure discovered beneath the waters of the Sea of Galilee in Israel has archaeologists puzzled as to its purpose
and even how long ago it was built.

The mysterious structure is cone shaped, made of "unhewn basalt cobbles and boulders," and weighs an estimated 60,000 tons the researchers said.
That makes it heavier than most modern-day warships.

Rising nearly 32 feet (10 meters) high, it has a diameter of about 230 feet (70 meters). To put that in perspective, the outer stone circle of
Stonehenge has a diameter just half that with its tallest stones not reaching that height.

It appears to be a giant cairn, rocks piled on top of each other. Structures like this are known from elsewhere in the world and are sometimes used to
mark burials. Researchers do not know if the newly discovered structure was used for this purpose.

The structure was first detected in the summer of 2003 during a sonar survey of the southwest portion of the sea. Divers have since been down to
investigate, they write in the latest issue of the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology.

"Close inspection by scuba diving revealed that the structure is made of basalt boulders up to 1 m (3.2 feet) long with no apparent construction
pattern," the researchers write in their journal article. "The boulders have natural faces with no signs of cutting or chiselling. Similarly, we did
not find any sign of arrangement or walls that delineate this structure." [See Photos of the Mysterious Sea of Galilee Structure]

They say it is definitely human-made and probably was built on land, only later to be covered by the Sea of Galilee as the water level rose. "The
shape and composition of the submerged structure does not resemble any natural feature. We therefore conclude that it is man-made and might be termed
a cairn," the researchers write.

An ancient city

If the third-millennium B.C. date idea proves correct it would put the structure about a mile to the north of a city that researchers call "Bet
Yerah" or "Khirbet Kerak."

During the third millennium B.C. the city was one of the biggest sites in the region, Paz said. "It's the most powerful and fortified town in this
region and, as a matter of fact, in the whole of Israel."

Archaeologist Raphael Greenberg describes it in a chapter of the book "Daily Life, Materiality, and Complexity in Early Urban Communities of the
Southern Levant" (Eisenbrauns, 2011) as being a heavily fortified 74-acre (30 hectares) site with up to 5,000 inhabitants.

With paved streets and towering defenses its people were clearly well organized. "They also indicate the existence of some kind of municipal
authority able to maintain public structures ..." Greenberg writes.

The research team says that, like the leaders of Bet Yerah, whoever built the newly discovered Sea of Galilee structure needed sophisticated
organization and planning skills to construct it. The "effort invested in such an enterprise is indicative of a complex, well-organized society, with
planning skills and economic ability," they write in their journal paper.

Paz added that "in order to build such a structure a lot of working hours were required" in an organized community effort.

Future exploration

That's very interesting stuff indeed, why pile up a giant pups of rocks.

Good spot and thanks for sharing. The fact it is the Sea of Gallilee makes it more interesting for me because i always thought that was a fresh water
lake? Meaning that something pretty significant must have affected water levels there for them to be able to drop and then rise again after such a
structure had been assembled.

The coastal side of the Eastern Med should be a treasure trove of lost ancient civilization really though. Aside from all we know, not many people
know that the Eastern Med was hit by a mega tsunami around 8'000 years ago from a flank collapse at Mt Etna. The resulting wave was estimated to have
been around 140 feet (at maximum) and travelling at up to 450 mph. To put that in perspective, that is more powerful than the 2004 Indonesia tsunami.
Any coastal settlement would have been completely obliterated - plus the fact it was flank collapse (rather than explosive eruption) means that little
to no warning would have been available (even if the signs had been understood).

I do though think that such an event would have a lasting impression on any survivors - settlements rebuilt inland, etc.

Just considering alternatives. Perhaps someone cleared the farmland of large rocks and put them on barge to be dumped at sea. It is as logical as
anything else. It does noes not always have to be 'burial' or 'religious'. It may just be a rock dump. Another explanation, ships needing
ballast on an empty return journey just dumped them before going into port. Could be anything.

What I find most interesting is that it is a true cairn, a pile of unworked rocks.
And pretty darn big rocks too. One has to wonder why build such a large pile
of uncut rocks.
Unless its much older than thought, the people of the time and area were well versed in stone work, and you would think if it was a tomb or such it
would have had been constructed of at least roughly hewn stones.
Given the place and time it conjures up images from a horror fulm, where some ancient bad thing was buried.

Yes, the flank collapse of eatna was a catastrophic event and surely left a mark on the collective memory of the people eastern med. What's
remarkable is how frequent tsunamis were in the ancient med.,,I read an article about early settlements around the entrance to the dardanells, and
they found that the earlier settlement were washed away by a tsunami, and subsequent settlments were built up on the bluffs a few kilometres from the
shore. The author also thought that troys legendary walls might have been for a response to a tsunami, in in that they are incredibly robust for a
defensive structure of the time.

I can think of no other reason for a big pile of rocks to be in a body of water like this, so I will have to agree with painterz. I think it is likely
that the pile of rocks are a result of trying to build an island fortress / stronghold, and the project was simply abandoned before its completion.

Rising nearly 32 feet (10 meters) high, it has a diameter of about 230 feet (70 meters).... It appears to be a giant cairn, rocks piled on top of
each other.

The real question is whether this structure is artificial or whether it was constructed naturally. The fact that the rocks were piled on top of each
other indicates the latter. It does make you think, with discoveries like this, maybe the tale of Atlantis was true.

I can think of no other reason for a big pile of rocks to be in a body of water like this, so I will have to agree with painterz. I think it is likely
that the pile of rocks are a result of trying to build an island fortress / stronghold, and the project was simply abandoned before its completion.

Anderson Cooper in Planet in Peril did a segment on sinking islands. If this phenomenon is still happening today it likely happened in the
past. Maybe the weight of such island construction contributed to it sinking.

Originally posted by pheonix358
Just considering alternatives. Perhaps someone cleared the farmland of large rocks and put them on barge to be dumped at sea. It is as logical as
anything else. It does noes not always have to be 'burial' or 'religious'. It may just be a rock dump. Another explanation, ships needing
ballast on an empty return journey just dumped them before going into port. Could be anything.

P

Same thought occurred to me. Have to look up more on the geography of the area -- sadly, what I'm finding focuses on the significance to the area in
terms of Christianity and nothing (so far) on water levels, when it was formed, etc.

Originally posted by MysteriousHusky
Anderson Cooper in Planet in Peril did a segment on sinking islands. If this phenomenon is still happening today it likely happened in the
past. Maybe the weight of such island construction contributed to it sinking.]

While the weight might deform the land a fraction of a millimeter, it's not going to cause it to sink. Otherwise all our modern office buildings
would be in deep pits (not to mention ancient castles and fortifications of the area.)

This is the burial site of an important person from the city. I bet there's also a large amount of gold down there. This is why they put it under
water, so that people couldn't get to it. This was also done in secret so that people didn't go looking for it. This is why we never knew about
it.

I can think of no other reason for a big pile of rocks to be in a body of water like this, so I will have to agree with painterz. I think it is likely
that the pile of rocks are a result of trying to build an island fortress / stronghold, and the project was simply abandoned before its completion.

It said in the article that the entirety of the structure came to the shape of a cone. If truly a cone shape in geometrical proportion is what they
mean then there is no way it is a natural formation if it was just a
building material dump.

If they had just dumped it off then it would've settled at best into a mound shape, but that is clearly different
than a cone.

That's a good point, but I wasn't under the impression that they had just dropped stones and formed a natural conical sand pile shape. I think the
perimeter stones were strategically placed to form a tower-esque foundation, and then they just dropped stones on top.

Although, you and MysteriousHusky might be right, if that's what you're eluding too. (They built above sea level and the sea level rose and overtook
the structure.)

Originally posted by pheonix358
Just considering alternatives. Perhaps someone cleared the farmland of large rocks and put them on barge to be dumped at sea. It is as logical as
anything else. It does noes not always have to be 'burial' or 'religious'. It may just be a rock dump. Another explanation, ships needing
ballast on an empty return journey just dumped them before going into port. Could be anything.

P

Same thought occurred to me. Have to look up more on the geography of the area -- sadly, what I'm finding focuses on the significance to the area in
terms of Christianity and nothing (so far) on water levels, when it was formed, etc.

I did see a report somewhere recently on water levels around various bodies of water in ancient Israel (and surrounding area). I can't for the life
of me remember where i saw it or even if it mentioned the Sea of Gallilee. I will have another look around for it and share if i find a link. It will
have been Livescience or New Scientist or similar though if anyone else wants to have a look!

It seems the old memory is packing up and that it was in December i saw that article and also that it was specifically about the Dead Sea (not the Sea
of Gallilee). The old alzheimers is clearly kicking in!

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.